Friday, June 6, 2014

Have you met DawahFilms aka Asadullah Ali al-Andalusi? Wonderful guy. An intellectual Lion ... of God nonetheless.*
(and for the Brown folks in the audience, did I mention he is WHITE and speaks english with an AMERICAN accent. My My ... Brown folks will get it!)

Ali holds several degrees in philosophy, Islamic Studies and reading chicken entrails (the last one was probably made up to boost his credentials).

al-Andalusi (he wants you to know he is from Muslim Spain) has a youtube channel. If you just visited his channel, you have come to the sad revelation that he has it "closed" and "offline".

Fortunately he is still willing to sacrifice a substantial amount of time on youtube for the benefit of mankind. He is very keen on letting everyone on youtube know how he has more important things to do than spending time on youtube.

He occasionally confronts fascists of the secular & liberal persuasions in order to expose their irrationality, ignorance and un-philosophical-ness...

Recently, DawahFilms rounded up several youtube libtards for a once in a lifetime learning experience. The topic, for the liberal minded, is "Murder of Apostates from Islam". But for those high minded folks such as al-Andalusi, the topic is "The Equitable Disciplinary Action for Federal Contract Infringement".

So then the libtards yell "freedom, freedom". They believe an individual should not be put to death for coming to the conclusion that the beliefs of a religion are false.

Asadullah, with gentle and calm poise, replies "hahaha you are all dumb". He proposes, using logic and arguments and evidence and God and most importantly himself, that an apostate from Islam should be killed.

The following is a meticulous examination of al-Andalusi's reasoning and argu... actually screw that! After all, it is not fitting for a dog to question a Lion.

Without further ado, here are the "not simple-minded" reasons for why leaving Islam is a crime punishable by death...**

1. You see All Muslims have agreed to be killed if they leave Islam. They even signed a contract (for real!)1.1 So really, this is just like suicide. nothing more. Very progressive of Islam, in my liberal opinion.

2. Islam is very serious ... emotions, feeling, desires are for wimps ... Islam is for men and men kill other men, especially for breaching contracts, which every muslim has agreed to. (for real)

3. Postmodernism lololololol4. Libtard atheists have no arguments but degrading insults for the Intellectual Lion who just wants to upgrade men to take contracts seriously....so killing apostates is alright

5. We are liberal fascists ... no argument there.6. Haha if libtards think an apostate should not be killed for disagreeing with Islam, that is just like saying anyone can breach any contract ...so logical

7. Human Rights are Evil, of course. why? because philosophy.8. Liberals bomb people who disagree with them so it's cool to behead those who disagree with Islam ... who can possibly argue against that?

9. Most importantly, you see, even Ex-Muslims know Islam is the truth. They are just choosing to die (and roast in hell for eternity).10. Contract ... Contract ... Contract ... Very serious .... and all Muslims have agreed to be killed once they leave islam.11. Again, you really need to get this right, apostates just want to die. They really are just trying to kill themselves. If you weren't all blazing islam-haters, you would know that Islam is merely providing suicide assistance ... progressive much!12. Finally, GOD!

Asadullah Dawah Ali al-Andalusi concluded his words of wisdom with the following;

Now to the subset of the Brown folks who MIGHT accidentally get the notion that "Asadullah Ali is a white-man's burden convert coming in to 'school us all' about our faith" ... ignore it. It is just waswas from Shaytan aka liberal secular fascists.

* His name Asadullah means "Lion of God"; that is what he decided to call himself after he became a Muslim. His entire name, Asadullah Ali al-Andalusi, translates to 'Ali The Andalusian Lion of God'. Nice, who wouldn't name oneself that?

PS. Googling for an image of Dawahfilms led me to this screenshot of one of his comments from a long time ago;

From a person who said "real terrorism" is when one has to appease the crowd comes the line that "real human dignity" is in murdering people for coming to conclusions that contradict his fascist religion.

PPS. In the remote chance that the Lion sees fit to answer this lowly bitch, and in the remoter chance that he thinks and wishes to state that his views have been misrepresented, I ask for his forgiveness. But that being said, I have no interest in engaging him ... Hope, he has signed a contract somewhere to respect that much!

PPPS. My Muslim relatives who live under Muslim governments would like to know where they can get a copy of this contract that every Muslim has agreed to. Who knows what they have all agreed to die for ... crap, my Uncle just got beheaded. He said the earth is round and that breached his contract ... oh well he was probably a liberal!

"Update (06/09/2014) - His Highness Asadullah Ali al-Andalusi has made a "quick" response. (Very important to notice that it was "quick" as it does not befit a lion to provide non-quick responses to dogs) http://asadullahali.wordpress.com/2014/06/10/a-quick-response/In light of Ali's response, I must admit a grave mistake on my part; in that I have unintentionally omitted a major detail from Asadullah's defense of killing ex-Muslims; a detail that increasingly many Muslims seem to think absolves themselves of the inherent hate in certain beliefs of theirs. What is the detail?

Thursday, March 6, 2014

Those
acquainted with the small piece of land called Kerala in South India are
witnessing an uproar regarding a “character” popularly known as Mata Amrithanandamayi
aka “The Hugging Saint” aka Amma
(meaning: Mom); an individual considered to be a God incarnate. She has
followers numbering in the millions across the world from various ethnicities,
cultures, financial and educational backgrounds.

As of recently, the
devotees of the “hugging saint” are enraged over a recently published book
called Holy
Hell:A Memoir of Faith, Devotion, and
Pure Madnessby Gail “Gayathri” Tredwell; she is an Australian white
woman who converted and became a a very close devotee of Amma for 20 years
before abandoning her in 1999. Gail’s book has accused Mata Amrithanandamayi of
fraud, sexual exploitation and corruption. Gail has also reported that she had
been raped by male priests very prominent in Amma’s ashramam (meaning: monastery).

The real face of Amma?

For western
readers, it is not much of a surprise that those in the divinity-business have
two-faces. However, such skepticism has still not taken root in the public
conscience of Indian believers and as expected the faithful devotees of Amma
have denounced Gail Tredwell and have suggested various conspiracies from
Hinduphobia to Hidden Christian agenda to Unrequited Love to Insanity.

Now,
where do Muslims come into this picture? Muslims are a minority population in
Kerala and since their religion demands it, they are opposed to these cults
developed around “holy-men”; the reason being of course, that for Muslims,
Prophet Muhammad has eternally copyrighted God’s access to mankind. So for
orthodox Muslims, all present personality-cults
across the world are to be dismissed because only Muhammad’s personality-cult
from 1400 years ago is valid. Therefore, Muslims are quite overjoyed over Gail
Tredwell’s revelations with most of them going “I told you so!!!”.

I
come from Kerala’s minority Muslim population and this affair has been a topic
of conversation among many of my family members and their friends. The purpose
of this post is to highlight my thoughts on how the very people who remain
skeptical and rational about other religious cults are unable to reflect the
same questions onto their own beliefs. Here are some of the most ironic points
(rephrased) made by Muslims regarding this matter;

1) “Amma’s followers are brainless-brainwashed sheep. If they could think
rationally for a moment they would abandon her cult”. – The person who said
this is the kind of guy who says “Qur'an is from God because it says so in the
Qur’an”

2) “These followers will rationalize anything away in order to protect
their belief in Amma” – Yet this person rationalizes away many of
Muhammad’s actions (marriage to Aisha, Zaynab, warfare etc) in order to protect
his belief in Islam.

3) “Amma and her cult are very influential, both politically and
financially, and thus will try to silence those who try to tell the truth and
only popularize whatever they want others to hear.” – The same person
thinks early Islamic history is credible and that it wasn't a case of the
winners writing their own history the way they wanted it to be heard.

4) “Gail Tredwell must have been a very naïve white woman to have fallen
for such a cult. There are many such whites who are clueless and turn to India desperate
for a religion.” – The same person does not think this is the case with the
many clueless western converts to Islam.

5) “More people would leave Amma if they didn’t have to fear persecution”
– The same person thinks killing apostates from Islam is justified (but only
under nations implementing Sharia – what a relief!)

6) “Why don’t these people at least use their brain and question their
beliefs about Amma’s divinity” – The same person has not questioned why he
believes the words coming out of Muhammad’s mouth are the words of God.

8) "The Amma cult is prosecuting the journalists reporting on the controversy. Shouldn't there be freedom of press and expression" - The most speechless I have felt. The same person wouldn't think twice about putting anyone who criticizes or satirizes Muhammad behind bars.

9) "The Amma followers believe that Amma became a God-incarnate in her teenage. How could anyone believe such absurdities " - The same person believes Jesus talked as an infant and other such miraculous stories

10) "The followers of Amma are trying to silence/murder those who leave their faith. They must be very insecure." - The same person believes apostates from Islam should be killed because they are committing treason.

These Muslims, are astonished by those sincere individuals who are
part of personality-cults. Muslims wonder why these individuals don’t see they
are in a cult and why they don’t question what they are told in the cult.

Dear
Muslims, they do not see they are in a cult for the same reason you do not see
you are in a cult. They do not question what they are told in the cult for the
same reason you do not question what you are told in your cult. Therefore, as a remedy to this
quandary, Start Questioning...

LQA's claim is as follows; i)
Anagrams of a word are synonymous or at the very least relational with each
other and thus can provide the meaning of that word; ii) Some anagrams of
"نُطْفَة" (nutfah) have meanings that are attributable to the
properties of a spermatozoon; iii) Therefore, "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) is
the best Arabic word in the 7th century to describe a spermatozoon. iv)
Therefore, "نُطْفَة" (nutfah), as used in the Qur’an means a
spermatozoon v) Therefore, the Qur’an has miraculous scientific foreknowledge.

While LQA's case is not a direct
objection to any of the specific arguments provided in Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about
Nothing (hereby EQMAN), it,
at the very least, is meant to negate one of EQMAN's central points; which concluded that the most
reasonable understanding of the word "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) in light
of all the relevant evidence is that it signifies seminal fluid as per a 7th
century understanding and not that of a sperm cell as per the modern
understanding.

On a side note, an interesting
development regarding this topic is that as of September 2013, Hamza Andreas Tzortzis,
the person EQMAN was directed
against, has repudiated and withdrawn his paper on the topic. He has also
referenced EQMAN in his recent
article regarding his retraction.[2] Thus, it is anticlimactic that other
apologists, such as LQA, who came to the scene to defend Hamza’s currently rejected
views, would also not follow suit.

Nonetheless, the post will begin by
providing the background details for the present argument; after which a
detailed analysis of and objections to the argument will be presented.

I. Background
to LQA's Argument

LQA has already been subject to two
previous responses on this site.[3][4]
He attempted to conclude that the term "نُطْفَة"
(nutfah), as used in the 7th century text of Qur’an, signifies the
modern understanding of sperm cells. However the two previous posts had
demonstrated that LQA’s conclusion does not follow from his premises and that
he had failed to holistically address the presented counter-arguments and
consequently ignored relevant evidences.

Much
in the same fashion, LQA can be seen here mischaracterizing a counter-argument
and then continuing with his new claims all the while ignoring relevant
evidences to the contrary.

The
following post will take a holistic approach rather than a point-by-point
rebuttal; wherein LQA’s argument will be analyzed for its logical validity,
hidden assumptions and empirical veridicality.

(NOTE: It is recommended that the Readers watch LQA’s video or see
its transcript before reading the following refutation.)

LQA
begins by displaying the ‘argument’ of the critics (at timestamp 00:26)

0:00:26.5 So I am going to speak about the word
NUTFAH and what actually a NUTFAH means. Now what critics of the Qur'an say is
the following; they say "The Qur'an contains X". So X is a particular
word; in this case NUTFATAN. In the 21st century, X is translated as Y. So what
they says is, for example, NUTFATAN is translated as a sperm or sperm cell.
0:01:00.0

LQA
has already begun on a mistaken note. The argument, which LQA characterized as
being from the “critics”, was taken from a blogpost of the present author.[5]
Contrary to what LQA stated, the argument is not from a “critic” of the Qur’an
but rather it was the characterization of a fallacious argument used by Muslim
apologists. It is not entirely clear how LQA could have mistaken the two. Given
that LQA is in the habit of hiding away links to the work of his critics, he
has misled (perhaps intentionally) his audience with such a
mischaracterization.

Regardless
of the mischaracterization, LQA proceeds with his argument which can be summarized
in the following manner.

1) If "نُطْفَة"
(nutfah) meant spermatazoon, then Quran is a miracle.

2) "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) means spermatazoon

2.1) "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) is the best Arabic word in the 7th
century to describe a spermatozoon.

2.1.1) Anagrams
are synonymous or relational in meaning with each other.

2.1.2) Some anagrams of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) have
meanings that are attributable to a spermatozoon.

Conclusion) Therefore, Qur’an is a miracle

LQA’s
justification for premise 1 is the charge of scientific foreknowledge which,
for the sake of the argument, is acceptable.

LQA’s
justification for premise 2, found in 2.1.1, 2.1.2 & 2.1, is perhaps the
most notorious part of his video. LQA then makes the leap, quite visibly, to his ultimate desire that the
meaning of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) be sperm cells and thus the
Qur’an a miracle.

III.
Initial Impression

The
‘Science in the Qur’an’ lobby has been engaged in the same task for the previous
four decades; namely trying to fit an elephant through a pinhole.

At
least as of recently, many Muslims are becoming increasingly aware of the fact
that such a task is not feasible.[6]
Hamza Tzortzis himself is an example when he states the following;

“Regrettably, the scientific miracles
narrative has become an intellectual embarrassment for Muslim apologists,
including myself.” [2]

However,
less sophisticated Muslims still resort to the technique of ‘pretending that
the pinhole is large enough’.

Such
apologists as Zakir Naik and Harun Yahya were once in favor of directly
reinterpreting the verses to suit their wishful thinking. When this was not
sufficient, those like Hamza tried to base his reinterpretations by unjustifiably
deriving meanings from the cognates of Qur’anic words. Since the release of EQMAN, this method too has been shown to
be insufficient. As a consequence, LQA arrives with the new method wherein he pretends
anagrams of a word, on top of the cognates, are synonymous/relational and are
then used to derive contrived and suitable meanings. The need for such Muslim
apologists to make the pinhole as large as possible could not be more apparent.

IV. Objections
to LQA's Argument

This post will outline the various
flaws that have resulted from LQA's lack of critical thinking and negligence of
crucial evidence. The objections presented are;

2.1.1) Anagrams are
synonymous or relational in meaning with each other.

2.1.2) Some anagrams of "نُطْفَة"
(nutfah) have meanings that are attributable to the properties of
a spermatozoon.

2.1) "نُطْفَة"
(nutfah) is the best Arabic word in the 7th century to describe a spermatozoon.

2) "نُطْفَة"
(nutfah) means sperm cell

This
set of statements form the crux of LQA’s video yet he fails to justify his
central conclusions. Firstly, no justification is given for (2.1.1) as
to how anagrams of a word can provide meanings for each other. Secondly, no
justification is given for (2.1) as to how "نُطْفَة"
(nutfah) becomes the best Arabic word to describe a spermatozoon merely because
he derived contrived meanings from some anagrams of "نُطْفَة"
(nutfah). Lastly and most
importantly, no justification is given for (2) as to how "نُطْفَة"
(nutfah), as used in the Qur’an, means a spermatozoon merely because LQA
retrospectively concluded it is the best word to describe a sperm cell. Therefore,
the 3 main conclusions in LQA’s argument are entirely non-sequitur.

LQA’s
conclusion in (2.1) asserts that "نُطْفَة"
(nutfah) is the best Arabic word in the 7th century to signify the
idea of a spermatozoon. The reasoning
he provides is that he derived four contrived definitions that are attributable
to a “sperm cell” from the anagrams of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah). The
four specific definitions will be discussed later.

LQA’s argument begs the question of
what exactly the objective rules are for declaring a certain word as the “best
word” to denote a concept; and for this LQA provides no explicit answer. Thus,
one is left to presume that the “best-word” is those with anagrams onto which contrived
meanings can be imposed upon. What is then the justification for this
assertion? No answer is to be found in LQA’s video and thereby one is left with
nothing more than the arbitrary and subjective line of LQA’s reasoning.
Therefore, this conclusion is a non-sequitur.

The last of LQA’s conclusion is in
(2); where he implies that "نُطْفَة" (nutfah), as used in the Qur’an,
means, without any doubt, “a sperm cell”. This is concluded from the
unjustified conclusion in (2.1), which itself is concluded from another
unjustified assertion in (2.1.1).

In other words, the meaning
of a 7th century usage of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) as “sperm
cell” is not entailed even if it is the case that "نُطْفَة" (nutfah)
is the “best word” to describe a spermatozoon. Therefore,
LQA’s central conclusion exists as the product of a three-fold non-sequitur
line of reasoning.

2)
The Argument commits the fallacy of Hasty Generalization

Premise
(2.1.1) states that anagrams of a word can provide meanings for each of the
anagrams. LQA merely asserts this by providing a solitary example;

0:02:38.0 Now here we have a root, the
AYN-MEEM-LAM. And from this root we get the concept of action. Now there is a
phenomenon in Arabic as well as other semitic languages which is the base
letters of a word; is that you use the same letters but you rearrange them. And
what it does is give related meaning. And sometimes even, information about
another word that has the same letters. Now let's say for example somebody did
something; he tried to build something for example but he had no knowledge.
That would be a crime. Here in Australia
if you were to build a house without having the proper knowledge, the proper
background, this would be an offence; because it is endangering people's lives.
So what do you need; there is something you need with action. And that is I'LM,
knowledge. So let us, here, that A'mal
and I'lm are related. You can't have
one without the other; even when it comes to religious matters. We want to
learn some rules, we might learn how to pray, but there is not point if one is
not acting. And actually if you don't act it is a big sin. So there is a
relationship between these two. Same letters, different order and they give
related meanings. 0:04:09.0

From
this example, LQA tries to derive a universal rule that one can use anagrams to
provide meanings or explanations of each other. Formally, the reasoning used by
LQA commits the hasty generalization fallacy. It does not follow that since the anagrams of a few
words can be arbitrarily related to each other that such a linguistic nature of
the proposed relationship is a universal rule.

“There is [a] type of etymology ... called Greater
Etymology (الاشتقاق
الكبير) that recognizes
the common meanings words with different base letters share ... This is by no
means a mature science ... There are no rules, no systematic
methodologies except those we impose ourselves, and no observations are to
be taken as universally applicable regulations.”

Incidentally, “no rules” and
“no systematic methodologies” is a perfect description of LQA’s video. He has
merely imposed his preconceived conclusion on to the anagrams in order to
contrive the meaning of a spermatozoon. Thus it is comical to think that LQA is
utilizing an admittedly “immature” idea with no rules, no system, no
methodology in order to “predict” his preconceived interpretations. One can
only wonder at the amount of desperation behind such an attempt.

Regardless,
given that this is not a universal rule, there is no need to press on the issue
further. One can easily look at the examples given in the website above as well
as LQA’s video and come to the realization that the so-called relationship
between the anagrams are extremely arbitrary and/or subjective. For example, in
website above, 2 anagrams with meanings “baking” and “eagle” respectively are
related by saying an eagle is “hasty” bird while a baked good “hastens” to
break apart. Such are the degree of arbitrariness involved in this linguistic
puzzle; an exercise far removed from reality.

Similarly,
in LQA’s video, the word "نُطْفَة"
(nutfah) is compared with an anagram having the meaning of “death/obstruction”.
In order to relate the two, he states the following;

the root of NUTFAH
has the root NOON-TA-FA. Now those three letters, if we were to rearrange them
we get the following patterns. ... the TA-FA-NOON. Words on this root mean,
death and obstruction. That is very interesting because we know sperm have a
hard time when they enter the female body. There are so many different
obstructions in the way that cause problems for it and all the sperm cells will
die; or one could enter into the egg. So either one survives or none survives
Subhanallah. 0:05:48.1

Think
about the amount of arbitrariness involved. “Death” is related to “sperm”
because it (like all organic matter) “dies”. “Obstruction” is related to
“sperm” because it, like all living things, has some “obstructions” in its life
cycle.

This
arbitrary and un-objective methodology of letter-play and guesswork is LQA”s
grand plan to “miraculize” the Qur’an. It cannot be stated with enough emphasis
that LQA’s assertion (2.1.1) of anagrams providing meanings for each other is a
blatant non-sequitur on top of a hasty generalization fallacy.

On
a side note, regarding this letter-play guesswork methodology, it may be of
benefit to heed to the Wittgensteinian view of language. He is of the view that
meaning in language is not prior to its usage but rather the meaning should be
derived from the way the words are used.

While
the topic of phonosemantics (the relation between sound and meaning) is an important
question in linguistics and the origin of language, it is also important to
keep in mind the view that language is a product of human usage and thus it is
not entirely sensible to abstract language away into a world of formulas and
theories; especially when this is done by ignoring the way in which the
language is regularly used. LQA is guilty of such a pseudo-intellectual line of
reasoning when he ignores how "نُطْفَة"
(nutfah) was used in antiquity in favor or his anagram-guessing-game. To quote Wittgenstein again, “One cannot
guess how a word functions. One has to look
at its application and learn from that.”

[1]

3)
The Argument commits the fallacy of Undistributed Middle

The
fallacy of undistributed middle is one of the most common examples of false reasoning present in
many of the ‘Science in the Qur’an claims’[7][8]. The same is repeated by LQA when he
makes the following argument;

1) The Qur’an mentions "نُطْفَة" (nutfah)

2)
“Spermatazoon” can be denoted using "نُطْفَة" (nutfah)

Therefore,
The Qur’an mentions “spermatozoon”.

Such an argument commits the fallacy
of undistributed middle. LQA would have to establish that any and every usage
of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) denotes a “spermatozoon”. However, this is
patently false as it is even documented in Lisan al-Arab that "نُطْفَة"
(nutfah) was meant to signify “seminal fluid” and thus consistent with a 7th
century understanding of human reproduction.

Therefore, LQA’s attempt to signify "نُطْفَة"
(nutfah) as “spermatozoon” does not in and of itself entail that the Qur’anic
usage has the same meaning; especially given the evidence from Lisan al-Arab.

4)
The argument is self-refuting

The following objection is a result
of considering the logical consequences of (2.1.1) and (2.1).

Consider a word “ABC”; if “ABC” can
mean “X” because its anagrams, “CBA”,
“BAC”, “CAB”, etc are related to “X”, then it can also be said that “CBA” means
“X” because its anagrams “ABC”, “BAC”, “CBA” etc are related to “X”. Likewise,
for each of the other anagrams.

Similarly, if anagrams of "نُطْفَة"
(nutfah) can provide the meaning of “spermatazoon” to "نُطْفَة"
(nutfah), then "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) can provide the same meaning to its
anagrams. Thus, any one of the anagrams of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) listed
by LQA can mean a spermatozoon.

Therefore, if LQA’s
anagram-guessing-game is valid, then the 4 anagrams of "نُطْفَة"
(nutfah) listed by LQA can denote a sperm-cell and thus, using LQA’s
methodology, each of the 4 words can be considered as the “best word” to
signify a spermatozoon. However, given that LQA insisted that "نُطْفَة"
(nutfah), and no other, was the “best word” and since his own argument has
produced other “best words”, LQA’s argument is self-refuting.

ii) Epistemological Objections

5) Hidden
Unjustified Assumptions

Hidden
assumptions are at times difficult to detect. The same can be said in LQA’s
case. Consider when LQA asks what the best 7th century Arabic word
is to denote a spermatozoon. In asking such a question, LQA has already assumed
that there exists a word in 7th century Arabic that denotes
“spermatozoon” and that it is merely a matter of discovering it. He further
assumes that it is sensible to identify non-existing concepts using words with
alternate meanings.

Such
a question is the equivalent of asking what the best 12th or 13th
century English word to denote a “biological cell” is. It has first of all
assumed that such a word even exists or that it makes sense to believe that the
concept of a “biological cell”, which did not exist in the 12th or 13th
century, can be identified using words that had different meanings.

If
a sophist wanted, he could present subjective and arbitrary reasons to claim
that words like “cell” or “prison” or “block” etc can signify a “biological
cell” in the 12th or 13th century. Yet if such a person
were to present any ancient text that has the word “cell” or “prison”, in a
metaphorical phrase such as “the prisons of a human being”, and claim it
divinely refers to the biological cells
of the body; it would be rejected as stupidity.

Now
consider the following Qur’anic example. In Sura 12:19, there is a phrase which
states, “And there came a caravan” (وَجَآءَتْ سَيَّارَةٌ). The 7th
century Arabic term used to mean “caravan” is “sayyara” (“ سَيَّارَةٌ”).
Incidentally, “sayyara” (“ سَيَّارَةٌ”) means “car” in the 21st
century. Perhaps, if LQA wanted to he can claim that Qur'an in Sura 12:19 uses
“sayyara” (“ سَيَّارَةٌ”) to mean a “car”. He could even use his
anagram-guessing-game to say that the angrams of “sayyara” (“ سَيَّارَةٌ”)
are related to the definition of a “car”, which, given the arbitrary nature of
LQA’s methodology, should be fairly easy.

Would
it now be reasonable to claim that the Qur’an was mentioning a “car” instead of
a “caravan” in the ancient deserts of the Middle East or North
Africa? Likewise, LQA’s attempt to do the same with "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) is equally unreasonable.

6) LQA’s Methodology is Arbitrary & Circular;

Consider
LQA’s methodology again. Take a word; have a preconceived “meaning”; list the
anagrams of the word; impose the desired meaning onto the anagrams. Then,
conclude that the imposed meaning has been derived from the anagrams.

Thus,
LQA takes the word "نُطْفَة"
(nutfah); he wants it to mean “spermatozoon”; he lists the following anagrams “نفط”
(na-fa-ta), “طنف” (ta-na-fa), “طفن” (ta-fa-na), “فطن” (fa-ta-na); with the
following meanings respectively; “movement of fluid with force”, “to protrude”,
“death/obstruction”, “to be intelligent, skillful”.

He then imposes the concept of a
“spermatozoon” on to these definitions however arbitrarily as possible (to see
his reasoning in full, see transcript from timestamp 04:00 to 09:30 http://pastebin.com/48NpwJEc). Then he
finally concludes that his imposed meaning has been derived. Such a line of
reasoning is as circular as it gets.

If
one were to grant the validity of this anagram-guessing-game for the sake of
the argument, then what is most striking about LQA’s line of reasoning is its
ultimately arbitrary or subjective or selective nature. Clearly there is
nothing in the 4 anagrams LQA presented that specifically and directly
references a “spermatozoon”. Instead LQA is forced to artificially impose the
concept of “spermatozoon” on to the 4 anagrams. Hence, LQA’s argument is
circular in nature as it boils down to LQA deriving the concept of
“spermatozoon” from the 4 anagram via imposing the concept of “spermatozoon” onto
the 4 anagrams

6.1) The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy

However,
if one were to analyze the 4 anagrams without LQA’s circular line of reasoning;
clearly there is nothing to suggest that i) “forcefully moving liquid” + ii) “protrusion”
+ iii) “death/obstruction” + iv) “intelligence” = a “spermatozoon”.

LQA’s
argument then is a prime example of the texassharpshooter fallacy. He has deliberately chosen to fit his 4 anagrams into
a description of a spermatozoon. In other words, rather than following where
the evidence leads to, LQA selectively chooses his “evidences” to fit his preconceived
conclusion. One could impose any number of concepts on to the 4 definitions.

6.2) The homunculus
Counter-example

In
fact, due to the arbitrary nature, one could easily use LQA’s method to claim
that "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) means a vast number
of concepts including imaginary ones. For a simple example, consider the
following. There used to be a theory called “preformationism”
which stated there exists a homunculus i.e.
a miniature human, in the seminal fluid which merely grows in size during the
course of pregnancy.

Would it now be possible to use
LQA’s methodology and impose the outdated concept of a homunculus on to the 4 anagrams? This is quite easily achieved. A homunculus is implanted through i) “the
movement of liquid with force”; it ii) “protrudes” out of the womb for
delivery; faces the risk of iii) “death” and other “obstructions” during
pregnancy” and of course it is an iv) “intelligent” creature.

Thus, using LQA’s very own
methodology, "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) can refer to a homunculus, therefore "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) would mean a homunculus and therefore the Qur’an would
be wrong. Fortunately for Muslims in this case, LQA’s reasoning is utterly
asinine.

6.3) Reductio-ad-Absurdum

In fact, the homunculus counter-example can be used to show that LQA’s method is
illogical. Since LQA’s method gives rise to contradictory conclusions as "نُطْفَة"
(nutfah) meaning a homunculus as well
as a spermatozoon, it follows, via reductio-ad-absurdum,
that LQA’s method is false.

A rather hilarious point about LQA’s
argument is that every single one of its premises can be used to justify the
conclusion that "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) means “seminal fluid”. Consider,
the four anagrams provided by LQA,

Each of the 4 inferences LQA made
from the 4 anagrams are equally applicable or relatable to the concept of
seminal fluid. “Seminal fluid” is a “liquid moving with “force”, it “protrudes”,
it “dies/decays”, faces “obstructions” in the body and transports cells that
will develop into “intelligent” beings.

Add to this point the fact that
classical dictionaries like Lisan al-Arab specifically defines "نُطْفَة"
(nutfah) as “seminal fluid”. Thus, even
if one were to accept LQA’s methodology, it would still be more reasonable to
accept the definition of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) as “seminal fluid”.

On a side note, consider the
following thought; 'X' and 'not X' cannot both be true. X then is not the best
word to describe 'not-X'. Of all possible words, why would the word that was
used and understood to mean “seminal fluid” be the best word to designate the
meaning of 'sperm'?

8)
The argument ignores relevant evidence.

As noted before, LQA has ignored the
entirety of evidences presented in EQMAN.
The most important of which are the following statements from Lisan al-Arab
where it defines "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) specifically as “seminal fluid”.
For any reasonable person, such a direct example of the usage of "نُطْفَة"
(nutfah) should outweigh any contrary retrospective anagram-guessing-games;

V.
Conclusion

Anyone who has taken the effort to
deconstruct LQA’s contentions very easily receives the message that he is not a
very competent thinker. As demonstrated in the previous two posts, there are
often huge gaps in his argument that are blatantly visible for anyone with eyes
to see. LQA, perhaps as a result of his lack of training in formal logic, is
unable to distinguish between facts and assertions, deductions and assumptions,
inferences and wishful thinking. He also
does not seem capable of seeing through his own prejudices and assumptions.
More damaging, however, is his inability to analyze the logical validity of his
arguments. Consequently and unsurprisingly, he is also incapable of deconstructing
counter-arguments accurately.

LQA’s present argument is one such
cocktail of hidden over-generalizations, weak inferences and logical fallacies
concocted on top of counter-arguments he failed to comprehend.

Regardless, this post has
sufficiently demonstrated that LQA relies on assertions without any proper or
sensible justification. The claim that one could derive the meaning of a word
through anagrams and arbitrary interpretations, all the while ignoring the established
meanings, is desperate, disingenuous and pseudo-intellectual.

Even if one were to hypothetically
grant the validity of LQA’s anagram-guessing-game, one is still struck by its
arbitrariness since LQA’s methodology can also be used to make words mean a
vast number of concepts. For example, LQA’s methodology was used to show that "نُطْفَة"
(nutfah) can also refer to an outdated concept of the homunculus. This consequently also proves that LQA’s methodology is
false via reductio-ad-absurdum.

Additionally, LQA’s methodology can
also be applied to the conclusion that "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) means
seminal fluid. This conclusion would also be supported by the historical
context as well academic lexicons of classical Arabic. Incidentally, LQA has
consistently chosen to ignore the relevant evidences from academic lexicons
presented in EQMAN.

Overall, LQA’s argument is pointless
and asinine. The only redeeming quality of having wasted one’s energy in
refuting such a silly argument is the realization that Muslim apologists have
hit absolute rock-bottom when they have to rely on anagrams and guesswork to
argue for their position.

UPDATE 02/21/2014 - Nabeel al-Khalidy aka LearnQuranicArabic has complained that I skipped over his "main ayah", verse 75:37, which he speaks about from 01:00 to 01:57 in his video. Skipping this argument in the post above was an oversight on my part for 2 reasons. The 2nd reason is that this wasn't the main argument of his video in my assessment. The 1st and mote important reason is that this argument had ALREADY been refuted in the original paper, EQMAN pages 16-23 (specifically 22-23)[7]. In fact, this was also pointed out directly to Nabeel in Objection 2 [3]. It remains to be seen how much longer Nabeel will continue to throw refuted arguments at me.

Monday, November 18, 2013

3:85 “And whoever
seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the
Hereafter he will be one of the losers.”

2) No Free Will

81:27-29 “Verily this
is no less than a Message to (all) the Worlds: (With profit) to whoever among you wills to go straight: But ye shall not will except as Allah
wills,- the Cherisher of the Worlds.”

2.1)
God misleading people

2:15 [But] Allah mocks them and prolongs
them in their transgression [while] they wander blindly.

2:17 “Allah mocks at them and gives them
increase in their wrong-doings to wander blindly.”

3) Muhammad responding to critics

2:13: And when it is said to them,
"Believe as the people have believed," they say, "Should we
believe as the foolish have believed?" Unquestionably, it is they who are
the foolish, but they know [it] not.

68:44: So leave Me, [O Muhammad], with [the matter of] whoever denies the Qur'an. We will progressively lead them [to punishment] from where they do not know.

4) Ad-Hominems/
Insults

98:6 “Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the
Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally
therein. Those are the worst of creatures.”

5) Conspiratorial and
Paranoid Muhammad

2:14 “And when they meet those who believe, they say, "We
believe"; but when they are alone with their evil ones, they say, "Indeed, we are with you; we were
only mockers."

6) Angels taught
black magic

2:102
“And they followed [instead] what the devils had recited during the reign
of Solomon. It was not Solomon who disbelieved, but the devils disbelieved, teaching people magic and that which was
revealed to the two angels at Babylon,
Harut and Marut. But the two angels do not teach anyone unless they say,
"We are a trial, so do not disbelieve [by practicing magic]." And
[yet] they learn from them that by which they cause separation between a man
and his wife. But they do not harm
anyone through it except by permission of Allah. And the people learn what
harms them and does not benefit them. But the Children of Israel certainly knew
that whoever purchased the magic would not have in the Hereafter any share. And
wretched is that for which they sold themselves, if they only knew.”

7) If it was not from god then there would
be contradictions in it.

4:82 “Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from
[any] other than Allah , they would have found within it much contradiction.”

8) Only Allah knows
what is in the womb

31:34: Indeed, Allah [alone] has knowledge of the Hour and sends
down the rain and knows what is in the wombs. And no soul perceives what it
will earn tomorrow, and no soul perceives in what land it will die. Indeed,
Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.

Hadith Bukhari Vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith 219 : Allah's Apostle said,
"The keys of Unseen are five which none knows but Allah: None knows what
will happen tomorrow but Allah; none knows what is in the wombs (a male child
or a female) but Allah; none knows when it will rain but Allah; none knows at
what place one will die; none knows when the Hour will be established but
Allah."

16:101 - And when We substitute a verse in place of a verse - and
Allah is most knowing of what He sends down - they say, "You, [O Muhammad], are but an inventor [of
lies]." But most of them do not know.

25:4 – “And those who disbelieve say, "This [Qur'an] is not except a falsehood he invented, and another
people assisted him in it." But they have committed an injustice and a lie.”

10) Muhammad accused
of learning or being helped

16:103 - And We certainly know that they say, "It is only a
human being who teaches the Prophet." The tongue of the one they refer to
is foreign, and this Qur'an is [in] a clear Arabic language.

25:4 – “And those who disbelieve say, "This [Qur'an] is not
except a falsehood he invented, and another
people assisted him in it." But they have committed an injustice and a
lie.

25:5 – “And they say, "Legends of the former peoples which he
has written down, and they are dictated to him morning and afternoon."

11) Skepticism of the
Meccan Polytheists

i) Why the Qur'an wasn’t produced all at once?

25:32-33 – “And those who disbelieve say, "Why was the Qur'an
not revealed to him all at once?" Thus [it is] that We may strengthen
thereby your heart. And We have spaced it distinctly. ”

ii) Why the Qur’an wasn’t revealed to an angel that would appear to the
Meccans?

25: 7 – “And they say, "What is this messenger that eats food
and walks in the markets? Why was there not sent down to him an angel so he
would be with him a

warner?”

12) Equality or lack there of for Slaves

16:75 – “Allah puts forward the example (of two men a believer and
a disbeliever); a slave (disbeliever) under the possession of another, he has
no power of any sort, and (the other), a man (believer) on whom We have
bestowed a good provision from Us, and He spends thereof secretly and openly.
Can they be equal? (By no means, not). All the praises and thanks be to Allah.
Nay! (But) most of them know not.”

13) Muslim does not doubt

49:15 – “Only those are Believers who have believed in Allah
and His Messenger, and have never since doubted, but have striven with their
belongings and their persons in the Cause of Allah: Such are the sincere ones”

14) Inimitability of Qur'an

17:88 – "Say, "If mankind
and the jinn gathered in order to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could
not produce the like of it, even if they were to each other
assistants.""

2:23-24 - "And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down
upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call
upon your witnesses other than Allah, if you should be truthful. But if
you do not - and you will never be able to - then fear the Fire, whose fuel is
men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers."

10:37-38 - "And it was not [possible] for this Qur'an to be
produced by other than Allah, but [it is] a confirmation of what was before it
and a detailed explanation of the [former] Scripture, about which there is no
doubt, from the Lord of the worlds. Or do they say [about the Prophet],
"He invented it?" Say, "Then bring forth a surah like it and
call upon [for assistance] whomever you can besides Allah, if you should be
truthful.""

11:13-14 -"Or do they
say, "He invented it"? Say, "Then bring ten surahs like it that
have been invented and call upon [for assistance] whomever you can besides
Allah, if you should be truthful." And if they do not respond to you
- then know that the Qur'an was revealed with the knowledge of Allah and that
there is no deity except Him. Then, would you [not] be Muslims?"

14.1) Response by Meccans

8.31 – "And when Our verses are recited to them, they say,
"We have heard. If we willed, we could say [something] like this. This is
not but legends of the former peoples.""

15) Abrupt Change in Narrator

21:18-19 – "Rather, We
dash the truth upon falsehood, and it destroys it, and thereupon it departs.
And for you is destruction from that which you describe. To Him
belongs whoever is in the heavens and the earth. And those near Him are not
prevented by arrogance from His worship, nor do they tire."

16) Muhammad speaks
in 1st person

51:49-51- “And of all things We
(Allah) created two mates; perhaps you will remember. So flee to Allah .
Indeed, I (Muhammad) am to you from
Him a clear warner. And do not make [as equal] with Allah another deity.
Indeed, I (Muhammad) am to you from
Him a clear warner.”

17) Charity can be
used for Islamic Proselytizing

9:60 – “Zakah expenditures are only for the poor and for the needy
and for those employed to collect [zakah] and
for bringing hearts together [for Islam] and for freeing captives [or
slaves] and for those in debt and for the cause of Allah and for the [stranded]
traveler - an obligation [imposed] by Allah . And Allah is Knowing and Wise.”

Tafsir ibn Kathir – “Al-Mu'allafatu Qulubuhum There are several
types of Al-Mu'allafatu Qulubuhum. There are those who are given alms to
embrace Islam...Some
of Al-Mu'allafatu Qulubuhum is given from alms so that they become better in
Islam and their heart firmer in faith...Some people are given because some of
his peers might embrace Islam, while others are given to collect alms from
surrounding areas, or to defend Muslim outposts.” http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2543&Itemid=64

18) Muhammad &
Self-Serving Revelations

33:36 – “It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when
Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter]
have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His
Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error.”

33:37 – “And [remember, O Muhammad], when you said to the one on
whom Allah bestowed favor and you bestowed favor, "Keep your wife and fear
Allah ," while you concealed within yourself that which Allah is to
disclose. And you feared the people, while Allah has more right that you fear
Him. So when Zayd had no longer any need for her, We married her to you in
order that there not be upon the believers any discomfort concerning the wives
of their adopted sons when they no longer have need of them. And ever is the
command of Allah accomplished.”

33:50 – “...a believing woman if she gives herself to the Prophet
[and] if the Prophet wishes to marry her, [this is] only for you, excluding the
[other] believers...”

19) Meccans on
Ressurection

17:49-51- “And they say, "When we are bones and crumbled
particles, will we [truly] be resurrected as a new creation?" Say,
"Be you stones or iron Or [any] creation of that which is great within
your breasts." And they will say, "Who will restore us?" Say,
"He who brought you forth the first time." Then they will nod their
heads toward you and say, "When is that?" Say, "Perhaps it will
be soon –“

44:34-37- “Indeed, these [disbelievers] are saying, There is not
but our first death, and we will not be resurrected. Then bring [back] our
forefathers, if you should be truthful.”

45:24-26- “And they say, "There is not but our worldly life;
we die and live, and nothing destroys us except time." And they have of
that no knowledge; they are only assuming. And when Our verses are recited to
them as clear evidences, their argument is only that they say, "Bring
[back] our forefathers, if you should be truthful." Say, "Allah
causes you to live, then causes you to die; then He will assemble you for the
Day of Resurrection, about which there is no doubt, but most of the people do
not know."